# SCOTUS rules States can ban race-based AA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2014, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760 "2014-04-23T11:59:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/221 "2014-04-28T16:26:37Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > God, you guys will forgive any transgression - lying, deception, cheating etc - as long it’s ostensibly legal and furthers your goal of sticking it to black people. The people of Michigan were systemically lied to by the MCRI and there was no remedy after the fact. MCRI engaged in [systemic voter fraud,](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PetitionFraudreport_162009_7.pdf) this aren’t just my words, it’s also the words of a [U.S District Judge](http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Opinions/tarnowpdf/06cv12773AJT.pdf) and the Michigan Civil Rights Commision. > > - Honesty I don’t really care about the morality of it, I’m just point out it’s legal. None of those bodies you mentioned aside from the U.S. District Court could make an actual determination on whether it was voter fraud, and that decision specifically says it isn’t any kind of actionable fraud under the Voting Rights Act–so it may be fraud in the conversational sense but not the legal sense (as a judge would be compelled to act otherwise.) I don’t think we should have referendums at all, as I consider it an intrinsic part of the process that the sort of things you mention will be going on. FWIW as a policy position I believe universities should set their own admissions criteria, as long as they aren’t grossly discriminatory, so I don’t actually support the Michigan law. So no, I’m not saying something is legal because it “sticks it to the blacks”, I’m saying it’s legal because it’s legal. I just don’t have the outrage you do because I start from the position that ballot initiatives are intrinsically going to result in special interests manipulating and confusing voters on issues they lack the sophistication to understand. If you outlaw method A, method B is developed which is legal etc etc, it’s why we shouldn’t have them in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/222 "2014-04-28T16:28:49Z")
Honesty, Bricker! Tone it down a few notches. Vitriol has no place here and, while we all appreciate some snarkiness, let’s keep it pleasant. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/223 "2014-04-28T16:36:45Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > God, you guys will forgive any transgression - lying, deception, cheating etc - as long it’s ostensibly legal and furthers your goal of sticking it to black people. The people of Michigan were systemically lied to by the MCRI and there was no remedy after the fact. MCRI engaged in [systemic voter fraud,](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PetitionFraudreport_162009_7.pdf) this aren’t just my words, it’s also the words of a [U.S District Judge](http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Opinions/tarnowpdf/06cv12773AJT.pdf) and the Michigan Civil Rights Commision. > > - Honesty I’m curious if you are venting because you think the Michigan public will was thwarted by all this deceit, or if you’re just pissed that some conniving whites conned some blacks… Pew and Rasmussen seem to have polls showing different public sentiment toward race-based AA. I’ve never been quite sure where the public is on the question of race-based preferences. Do you have a preferred cite on the issue? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/224 "2014-04-28T17:14:25Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > It should be illegal to do it in the first place, Bricker. This is why I hate this country sometimes. THIS SHOULD NOT EVER HAPPEN: > > Still not convinced of systemic voter fraud in MCRI’s collection process? That’s OK, I’m very patient and I’m willing to keep hitting this home until it sinks in. The [Michigan Civil Rights Commission](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PetitionFraudreport_162009_7.pdf) found the following: > > Still not convinced of systemic voter fraud in the collection process, **Bricker**? Still calling bullshit on it? No doubt. Let’s keep going. I never disputed the strong evidence that it happened, **Honesty**. My point was: it’s not against the law, and thus does not invalidate the petition. Ultimately the person signing is responsible for what the paper he signs says. A law that tried to enforce what signature collectors said is certainly possible. But it would greatly weaken, if not destroy, the ability to collect effective signatures for any petition. Consider my hypothetical company, the Evil Oil Co. I want to build a refinery next to the puppy playground; the neighborhood collects signatures on a petition to stop me. Can I challenge them by bringing forward witnesses who will claim that the signature collectors lied about how bad oil is for the environment? How about simply people who claim the collectors lied about which side the petition supported? If a dozen adverse witnesses can raise doubts about the entire petition, surely you can see how an unprincipled opponent can derail nearly any petition drive? > [@](#): > > Are you still in doubt? Can you believe this is actually legal? It’s ok, we can keep going, there’s lots of fraud to go around. Yes. I quoted the relevant section of Michigan law, and the Court of Appeals decision. I am completely confident it’s legal. > [@](#): > > How did I misrepresent what the Board of Canvassers did? The Board performs mostly a ceremonial function of rubber stamping ballots after the Secretary of State confirms the legitimacy of the signatures. The Board was in deadlocked in a rare 2-2 vote after it was brought to light that many people who signed the petition did so after being told it was for Affirmative Action. Your implication was that Board actively rejected the petition. They deadlocked – they did nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/225 "2014-04-28T17:16:01Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > God, you guys will forgive any transgression - lying, deception, cheating etc - as long it’s ostensibly legal and furthers your goal of sticking it to black people. The people of Michigan were systemically lied to by the MCRI and there was no remedy after the fact. MCRI engaged in [systemic voter fraud,](http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PetitionFraudreport_162009_7.pdf) this aren’t just my words, it’s also the words of a [U.S District Judge](http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Opinions/tarnowpdf/06cv12773AJT.pdf) and the Michigan Civil Rights Commision. > > - Honesty But the effect of that was to get the language on the ballot. The people of Michigan were not deceived into passing something into law, were they? ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/226 "2014-04-28T21:40:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I never disputed the strong evidence that it happened, **Honesty**. My point was: it’s not against the law, and thus does not invalidate the petition. Ultimately the person signing is responsible for what the paper he signs says. > > A law that tried to enforce what signature collectors said is certainly possible. But it would greatly weaken, if not destroy, the ability to collect effective signatures for any petition. I don’t think so at all. There is nothing wrong with mandating large fonts of the petition language, making it illegal for petition gatherers to lie or misrepresent what the petition is about, or mandating that petition gathers must read aloud, verbatim, what the petition language is, before the person signs. Paying petition gathers per signature should go, too; that just encourages people to write-in signatures (which the MCRC found as well). Laws should be there to strengthen the integrity of the initiative system. What’s mind-boggling is that it’s an easy fix. > [@Bricker](#): > > Consider my hypothetical company, the Evil Oil Co. I want to build a refinery next to the puppy playground; the neighborhood collects signatures on a petition to stop me. > > Can I challenge them by bringing forward witnesses who will claim that the signature collectors lied about how bad oil is for the environment? How about simply people who claim the collectors lied about which side the petition supported? If a dozen adverse witnesses can raise doubts about the entire petition, surely you can see how an unprincipled opponent can derail nearly any petition drive? If those dozen adverse witnesses corroborate a story of widespread voter fraud, then yes, those signatures should be invalidated and Evil Oil Co. should be forced to start over. I don’t see a problem. You’re using dozens for the Evil Oil Co, but the Michigan Civil Rights Commission found over 120. The only thing “unprincipled” is how the MCRI instructed petition gathers to lie and obfuscate the intention of initiative. The whole affair not only wrong and unethical but reduces the integrity in the electoral process. > [@Bricker](#): > > Your implication was that Board actively rejected the petition. They deadlocked – they did nothing. You’re right. That was poor language on my part. [QUOTE=Bricker] But the effect of that was to get the language on the ballot. The people of Michigan were not deceived into passing something into law, were they? [/QUOTE] The point is that Proposal 2 should never have gone to the ballot in the first place. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/227 "2014-04-28T22:49:40Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > The point is that Proposal 2 should never have gone to the ballot in the first place. > > - Honesty Given 58% of voters ultimately approved it, it`s kind of hard to argue that democracy was somehow thwarted overall. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/228 "2014-04-29T10:27:46Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > The point is that Proposal 2 should never have gone to the ballot in the first place. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Given 58% of voters ultimately approved it, it`s kind of hard to argue that democracy was somehow thwarted overall. Correct. The purpose of the signature threshold is to ensure that fringe positions with no large support don’t overwhelm the ballot and create pages of “Shall the Lizard People be barred from holding office?” type propositions. The legal requirements for signatures were met. But you, **Honesty** , are not arguing that the law was violated. You’re arguing that the spirit of fair play was violated. If that’s true, I don’t see how you then revert to the pure legal argument. In other words, if the spirit is the important thing, then it’s clear that the strong majority of voters accepted the proposition, which is the ultimate spirit of democratically adopting legislation by referendum. If the law is important, then no law was violated. You’re arguing we should use the spirit of the law to say that the measure should never have gotten on the ballot, and then the strict letter of the law to say that regardless of how many voted for it, it should never have been there in the first place and therefore should be voided. At each stage of your argument, you adopt the standard which keeps your goal alive. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/229 "2016-06-23T21:49:37Z")
Today the Supreme Court upheld the Affirmative Action Program at University of Texas. Or as Wonkette succinctly and snarkily put it, [Mediocre White Girl Fails To Take Down Affirmative Action](http://wonkette.com/603311/mediocre-white-girl-fails-to-take-down-affirmative-action): > [@](#): > > The [majority opinion](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-981_4g15.pdf) was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who explained that the school had valid reasons for wanting to promote a diverse environment: > > > [@](#): > > > > A university is in large part defined by those intangible “qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness.” Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634 (1950). Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission. But still, it remains an enduring challenge to our Nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity. […] > > > > As this Court has said, enrolling a diverse student body “promotes cross-racial understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes, and enables students to better understand persons of different races.” Equally important, “student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society.” So it seems that despite the [50-page dissent](http://www.forbes.com/sites/maureensullivan/2016/06/23/supreme-court-minority-rips-majority-for-remarkably-wrong-decision-on-affirmative-action-in-texas/#7a83c80f103b) that Alito penned in which called it “affirmative action gone wild” and he called the idea that a diverse student body would produce “educational benefits” to be a “faddish theory.” Wonkette concludes and I concur: > [@](#): > > By starting early, and counterbalancing white Affirmative Action in college with an Affirmative Action meant to give opportunities to minorities, schools like the University of Texas increase the pool of qualified job applicants from diverse backgrounds. And white students learn how to interact with people of different races, thus decreasing the likelihood that this will be difficult for them to manage in the professional world. It works out quite nicely for everyone! Until we can show that white people are not gaining from Affirmative Action, we should be hesitant to dismantle the attempt to even the playing field for everyone. Today the court stated that not only are rules that assist in promoting a diverse atmosphere in state schools constitutional, but that it is beneficial and necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/230 "2016-06-23T22:09:25Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Today the court stated that not only are rules that assist in promoting a diverse atmosphere in state schools constitutional, but that it is beneficial and necessary. No. Not “necessary,” at least from a constitutional perspective. It’s neither forbidden nor required. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/231 "2016-06-23T22:16:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > Not “necessary,” at least from a constitutional perspective. That would be why I typed the word “but” and inserted a comma between the part of the two different parts of the sentence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/232 "2016-06-23T22:22:36Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > That would be why I typed the word “but” and inserted a comma between the part of the two different parts of the sentence. Huh? Your sentence suggested that the court did two things: - stated that rules that assist in promoting a diverse atmosphere in state schools are constitutional; AND - stated that rules that assist in promoting a diverse atmosphere in state schools are beneficial and necessary I agree with the first claim. And I agree that they stated many reasons the rules are beneficial. I disagree that they stated the rules are necessary. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/233 "2016-06-23T22:25:35Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > That would be why I typed the word “but” and inserted a comma between the part of the two different parts of the sentence. Bricked is correct. Your wording makes it should like it’s necessary (i.e., required). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/234 "2016-06-23T22:26:57Z")
I’m not playing semantic games with you. I didn’t mean necessary as in “it is necessary for everyone needs to adopt diversity,” I meant it as “necessary for beneficial outcomes in education.” Clear? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/235 "2016-06-23T22:35:58Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I’m not playing semantic games with you. > > I didn’t mean necessary as in “it is necessary for everyone needs to adopt diversity,” I meant it as “necessary for beneficial outcomes in education.” > > Clear? Sure, but you’re quite mistaken if you believe the difference between what you said before and what you’re saying now is a semantic quibble. Your first sentence did not say or imply “necessary for beneficial outcomes in education.” But, having clarified, I certainly agree with you now. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/236 "2016-06-23T22:38:35Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I’m not playing semantic games with you. > > I didn’t mean necessary as in “it is necessary for everyone needs to adopt diversity,” I meant it as “necessary for beneficial outcomes in education.” > > Clear? Yes. Do not blame the reader when your writing is unclear, though. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/237 "2016-06-24T03:51:46Z")
Sorry, I was under the impression that using the term “but” in between the two ideas (as opposed to “because”) made it clear enough. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/238 "2016-06-24T08:17:50Z")
It was clear to me. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/239 "2016-06-24T10:09:08Z")
> [@MrKnowItAll](#): > > Am I the only one here who wondered why there would even be a race-based Alcoholics Anonymous? > > I am? Oh. Sorry. No, you aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Uncle\_Jocko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uncle_jocko/32/2932_2.png) [@Uncle\_Jocko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncle_Jocko)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760/240 "2016-06-24T12:00:14Z")
A couple of interesting things about this particular case: apparently the Supreme Court said Fisher had an opportunity for automatic admission to UT by simply graduating in the top 10 percent of her high school class, a path open to every Texas high school student. Also, approximately 150 minority students with better grades than her were also denied admission, while approximately 150 white students with lower grades were admitted, indicating there were certainly factors other than race (activities, community involvement, other achievements) involved in her denial. The anti-affirmative action crowd probably should have picked a better standard bearer than Abigail Fisher. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-rules-states-can-ban-race-based-aa/686760.md?page=13)